Re: RFC4193 - ULA universal/local bit = 1 or 0

2006-04-28 Thread Bob Hinden
Daniel, Yes. Definitely L=1 The ULA document defines how to creates a local prefix for the site. A node would create it's interface IDs in the normal matter as specified in RFC4291. Nothing special is required or even desired. The L bit setting is independent of the prefix (global unicast, li

Re: RFC4193 - ULA universal/local bit = 1 or 0

2006-04-27 Thread Soohong Daniel Park
Bob, >> While adopting ULA into the local networks, I am curious >> how to set universal/local bit of Interface ID. There is >> no any mention in RFC4193. Which is correct ? 1 or 0 ? > > First to clarify your question, I think you are asking about the > universal/local bit discussed in the for

Re: RFC4193 - ULA universal/local bit = 1 or 0

2006-04-27 Thread Bob Hinden
Daniel, On Apr 27, 2006, at 1:19 AM, ext Soohong Daniel Park wrote: While adopting ULA into the local networks, I am curious how to set universal/local bit of Interface ID. There is no any mention in RFC4193. Which is correct ? 1 or 0 ? First to clarify your question, I think you are asking a

Re: RFC4193 - ULA universal/local bit = 1 or 0

2006-04-27 Thread Brian Haberman
On Apr 27, 2006, at 6:48, Eliot Lear wrote: Roger, On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Soohong Daniel Park wrote: While adopting ULA into the local networks, I am curious how to set universal/local bit of Interface ID. There is no any mention in RFC4193. Which is correct ? 1 or 0 ? 1 is for those assign

Re: RFC4193 - ULA universal/local bit = 1 or 0

2006-04-27 Thread Roger Jorgensen
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Eliot Lear wrote: > Roger, > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Soohong Daniel Park wrote: > > > >> While adopting ULA into the local networks, I am curious > >> how to set universal/local bit of Interface ID. There is > >> no any mention in RFC4193. Which is correct ? 1 or 0 ? > > 1 is

Re: RFC4193 - ULA universal/local bit = 1 or 0

2006-04-27 Thread Eliot Lear
Roger, > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Soohong Daniel Park wrote: > >> While adopting ULA into the local networks, I am curious >> how to set universal/local bit of Interface ID. There is >> no any mention in RFC4193. Which is correct ? 1 or 0 ? >> > > 1 is for those assigned to you while 0 are free

Re: RFC4193 - ULA universal/local bit = 1 or 0

2006-04-27 Thread Roger Jorgensen
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Soohong Daniel Park wrote: > While adopting ULA into the local networks, I am curious > how to set universal/local bit of Interface ID. There is > no any mention in RFC4193. Which is correct ? 1 or 0 ? 1 is for those assigned to you while 0 are free for any to use last I read

RFC4193 - ULA universal/local bit = 1 or 0

2006-04-27 Thread Soohong Daniel Park
While adopting ULA into the local networks, I am curious how to set universal/local bit of Interface ID. There is no any mention in RFC4193. Which is correct ? 1 or 0 ? Thanks in advance. Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park) Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics. ---